This site is an archived version of Indymedia prior to 5th November 2012. The current site is at

Hidden Comments

Submitted by Waleed (not verified)
 on Sunday, 16 January 2011 - 5:48pm

You ignorant middle class fools spewing out your tired ignorant liberal cliches about a country and a people you know nothing about.

Arrogance, sheer arrogance.

Submitted by The Real Lentil
 on Friday, 14 January 2011 - 9:21pm

Right, so anyone who's pissed off has the right to endanger other people? Or just people who agree with your nutbar agenda?

Submitted by BT (not verified)
 on Friday, 14 January 2011 - 9:08pm



Submitted by Pono Freeman (not verified)
 on Friday, 24 December 2010 - 12:04pm

As Crown Law is illegitimate according to the above article, obeying any orders of it must just be a response to the brute force they impose on people.  Total manipulation and control only.  It is "The Crown" that needs to prove it's legitimacy, honourably and just through brute force again.

Furthermore what say does 'The Crown' have about what goes on the internet.  They live in a colourable dreamworld, similar to people who have had too much 'P' or Ecstacy.  What...

Submitted by George Rangiaho (not verified)
 on Saturday, 18 December 2010 - 11:54am

Yeah I do understand that point IHB, I am just suspicious that they are not following their own protocols on this matter, therefore for instance, giving a token gesture to the suppressed leak may be their way of covering their arses when they in fact want it leaked or may secretly have more to gain from it being leaked.

What could they gain from that, well maybe the perception of over exposure of the trial in the lead up might be grounds to turn down a challenge if the defendants...

Submitted by ihatebarney (not verified)
 on Saturday, 18 December 2010 - 10:07am

The reason the Crown wants this suppressed is because the NZ public would question why this was being done in secret. What agenda the Crown had to remove the right to a jury for charges which should be  heard at the District Court. Perhaps they would tie this to the fact that the Crown has spent millions of tax payer funds to try prosecute activists and now want any way to have a little more control over the outcome.

Also old Trev at NewZeal was not prosecuted for breach of...

Submitted by Radical (not verified)
 on Friday, 17 December 2010 - 8:13pm

Getting your rights heard and upheld is either a matter of having the money to afford a good lawyer or barrister, or to work extremely hard yourself with or without legal aid to argue your case.

The interpretation of law is highly technical and demands a very good perception about basic legal principles. Most citizens and residents do already fail there and do never get true justice for themselve, simply for not understanding, for not affording and not being able to argue their own...

Submitted by TheMotive (not verified)
 on Tuesday, 14 December 2010 - 10:06pm

Any outcome will be seen by the divided public as partisan no matter which way the nominated judge rules because this is a political trial and everyone knows it on some level.

It seems that the crown intends to try these people using firearms law and unlawful possession of firearms (and I believe, criminal gang charges for some) as a means of continuing their accusations of terrorism or holding anti-state opinions.

How they do that without bringing up the specific intent of...

Submitted by Anonymousness (not verified)
 on Tuesday, 14 December 2010 - 7:52pm

Never know, could be a blessing in disguise if you'd otherwise end up with a jury full of members of the talk-back radio brigade, especially on an issue like this.  Also, could be a way for the Crown (here I mean the executive working with the  judiciary) to gracefully climb down from what they might now see as an embarrassing position - something there'd be no guarantee of achieving with an unruly red-neck jury.  No doubt government knows they've overstepped...

Submitted by Anonymousmouse (not verified)
 on Tuesday, 14 December 2010 - 12:26pm